This is excellent news.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Knocking down a straw woman
I like Rebecca Traister. But her piece in the upcoming NY Times Magazine -- "What Would Hillary Clinton Have Done?" -- is a mediocre piece of thinking.
Fine, let's grant that it's impossible to say what her presidency would have been like, in no small measure because of the reasons Traister cites -- because it would be seen as having denied America not only its first African-American president, but also because it would, in fact, have kept the fantasy of Obama's magic alive. The tabula rasa, the universal mirror, wouldn't have been smudged, and would continue to provide a clear reflection of everyone's wishes. As I noted in my first post to this blog three years ago, there were deep feelings, high hopes on both sides of this contest, so somebody's were bound to be quashed. And quashed hopes are hard to forget. So let's grant that a fantasy future would have been denied for many.
And fine, let's also grant that our political culture is a mess, and that its shit would have landed on any president's shoes. In fact, let's go much farther than that. Let's stipulate that we're in the midst of a global crisis of leadership, an inflection point in modern history -- that our institutions (the nation state, the corporation, the university, etc.) are failing to keep up with the profound shifts represented by globalization and a radically transformative digital commons (much less the looming threats of nuclear proliferation and global warming). Let's stipulate that no leader of any country, no matter how competent or well intentioned, has the kind of power or control that leaders of earlier eras did.
Nonetheless, what Traister is declaring illegitimate is, in fact, perfectly sound intellectually, and even more justifiable emotionally. It is so for a number of reasons.
First, Obama's failure is undeniable (not only from a leftist pov, but simply as an effective leader). Is she saying it's illegitimate to declare that, and/or to describe where and how he has failed? If so, then her piece is nothing but the rankest kind of excuse-mongering and/or fatalism. If not, if she's okay with criticizing his myriad mistakes, then all she's really saying is, "It's impossible to say for certain that Hillary wouldn't have made the same or equal mistakes." Well, duh. But that's a silly strawman. It's certainly not impossible to say Hillary probably wouldn't have made these mistakes -- and to point to actual evidence (her far greater expertise, clarity, systems thinking, lifetime record -- as a policy-maker, as a political leader, as a negotiator, and even personally, in her strength and growth through adversity). It's certainly not impossible to point to the fact that the right way to approach this economic crisis was clearly known, and clearly articulated, and ignored (viz. Paul Krugman) -- and it's certainly not unreasonable to speculate that Hillary, always a serious wonk and a seriously quick study, would have been very likely to see that.
Most fundamentally, Traister's petty critique ignores two simple things:
One candidate articulated clear policy objectives that were more progressive than the other, who consistently danced away from clear proposals or analyses, whose main accomplishment was and remains to have voted "present." It's far from unreasonable to suppose that the former candidate would have been a stronger leader for progressive values. Could many of the same roadblocks Obama has encountered have defeated her, too? Sure -- and so what? That's not the point of the comparison. The point isn't that one would obviously have triumphed where the other failed. The point is that there's every reason to believe that one would have tried, and there is ample evidence that other never did.
Second, the contest between these two was vicious, and the viciousness lay overwhelmingly on Obama's side. The very hatred that drove Traister -- admirably -- to switch to Hillary... the very stakes that were raised by the misogyny that Obama's fratboy team and their media helpers pushed day in and day out... meant that there was a breach to be repaired. And it never was. Obama has spent virtually every waking moment of his presidency caring for the sensibilities of Republicans, but not one moment caring about the disenfranchisement of 18 million Hillary voters or the woman-hatred that helped him to the nomination. He has made zero attempt to heal the Democratic Party, or even to tend to it, to build it as a vital institution. Rather, he has continued to sit inside the increasingly small cult of his own personality (ironic, since he has precious little actual personality). He has done a generation's worth of damage to the Democratic Party, to its base, to its future. When Hillary warned of the dangers of false hope, she couldn't have been more right on the money. And we're not supposed to remember all of that?
Sorry -- but the bill of attainder on this guy is too long and damning, and the road not taken is too clear. It's not only justifiable to contrast the two, it's inevitable -- in no small measure because Hillary may well re-emerge.
Fine, let's grant that it's impossible to say what her presidency would have been like, in no small measure because of the reasons Traister cites -- because it would be seen as having denied America not only its first African-American president, but also because it would, in fact, have kept the fantasy of Obama's magic alive. The tabula rasa, the universal mirror, wouldn't have been smudged, and would continue to provide a clear reflection of everyone's wishes. As I noted in my first post to this blog three years ago, there were deep feelings, high hopes on both sides of this contest, so somebody's were bound to be quashed. And quashed hopes are hard to forget. So let's grant that a fantasy future would have been denied for many.
And fine, let's also grant that our political culture is a mess, and that its shit would have landed on any president's shoes. In fact, let's go much farther than that. Let's stipulate that we're in the midst of a global crisis of leadership, an inflection point in modern history -- that our institutions (the nation state, the corporation, the university, etc.) are failing to keep up with the profound shifts represented by globalization and a radically transformative digital commons (much less the looming threats of nuclear proliferation and global warming). Let's stipulate that no leader of any country, no matter how competent or well intentioned, has the kind of power or control that leaders of earlier eras did.
Nonetheless, what Traister is declaring illegitimate is, in fact, perfectly sound intellectually, and even more justifiable emotionally. It is so for a number of reasons.
First, Obama's failure is undeniable (not only from a leftist pov, but simply as an effective leader). Is she saying it's illegitimate to declare that, and/or to describe where and how he has failed? If so, then her piece is nothing but the rankest kind of excuse-mongering and/or fatalism. If not, if she's okay with criticizing his myriad mistakes, then all she's really saying is, "It's impossible to say for certain that Hillary wouldn't have made the same or equal mistakes." Well, duh. But that's a silly strawman. It's certainly not impossible to say Hillary probably wouldn't have made these mistakes -- and to point to actual evidence (her far greater expertise, clarity, systems thinking, lifetime record -- as a policy-maker, as a political leader, as a negotiator, and even personally, in her strength and growth through adversity). It's certainly not impossible to point to the fact that the right way to approach this economic crisis was clearly known, and clearly articulated, and ignored (viz. Paul Krugman) -- and it's certainly not unreasonable to speculate that Hillary, always a serious wonk and a seriously quick study, would have been very likely to see that.
Most fundamentally, Traister's petty critique ignores two simple things:
One candidate articulated clear policy objectives that were more progressive than the other, who consistently danced away from clear proposals or analyses, whose main accomplishment was and remains to have voted "present." It's far from unreasonable to suppose that the former candidate would have been a stronger leader for progressive values. Could many of the same roadblocks Obama has encountered have defeated her, too? Sure -- and so what? That's not the point of the comparison. The point isn't that one would obviously have triumphed where the other failed. The point is that there's every reason to believe that one would have tried, and there is ample evidence that other never did.
Second, the contest between these two was vicious, and the viciousness lay overwhelmingly on Obama's side. The very hatred that drove Traister -- admirably -- to switch to Hillary... the very stakes that were raised by the misogyny that Obama's fratboy team and their media helpers pushed day in and day out... meant that there was a breach to be repaired. And it never was. Obama has spent virtually every waking moment of his presidency caring for the sensibilities of Republicans, but not one moment caring about the disenfranchisement of 18 million Hillary voters or the woman-hatred that helped him to the nomination. He has made zero attempt to heal the Democratic Party, or even to tend to it, to build it as a vital institution. Rather, he has continued to sit inside the increasingly small cult of his own personality (ironic, since he has precious little actual personality). He has done a generation's worth of damage to the Democratic Party, to its base, to its future. When Hillary warned of the dangers of false hope, she couldn't have been more right on the money. And we're not supposed to remember all of that?
Sorry -- but the bill of attainder on this guy is too long and damning, and the road not taken is too clear. It's not only justifiable to contrast the two, it's inevitable -- in no small measure because Hillary may well re-emerge.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Says it all
A forceful and cogent obit for the obots, in today's Times. As Westen says, the damage will last at least a generation.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Cui Bozo? - Updated
Citing a soon-to-be-published NY Review of Books article by Elizabeth Drew, Krugman this morning calls out -- once again accurately (dedicated and articulate Cassandra that he is) -- the twofer political-and-policy idiocy of Obama and his enablers.
I look forward to reading the Drew piece -- she's a terrific and thoughtful reporter. But before that further fodder (thanks, Groucho), a thought:
Obama needs both parties to be seen as crazy. It is required for his self-conception and self-delusion as the only sane man in the room. He must be deeply terrified, really profoundly lacking in self-confidence, in a sense of self, to need this fantasy so strongly. But whatever the source, it is clear by now that it is in Barack Obama's self-perceived self-interest -- hence the pun in my title -- to posit a political landscape equally polarized between ideologies.
Problem is, the Dems aren't crazy; they're feckless, but they're not batshit. So he winds up ignoring them in practice, leaving them out of any negotiations. And the "negotiations" aren't any such thing. They're all about him, about how he will get to appear in their wake. The policies and principles involved are of no interest. The real-world outcomes are of no interest. He is entirely willing to abandon foundational things, to cut into supporting beams. He is walking around inside a fantasy world in which his success inheres in where he stands on the stage vis a vis the others there. And it must be alone.
As a result, the evisceration of the Democratic Party isn't just collateral damage, it's the point (albeit the still-unconscious point) of all this kabuki. This is what we PUMAs said during the 2008 primaries -- we grokked how dangerous this guy was to the Democratic Party, while the putative leadership of the Democratic Party ushered this fox into the henhouse.
What will come of this "disaster" (to quote the Krug)? The GOP won't be hurt, it'll be enormously helped -- but, in my view, even that isn't the goal. The goal is to establish the sui generis, above-it-all, new-paradigm cult of the Precious.
And that, of course, is mad as a hatter.
Update: The Connie Bruck piece is out. It lays out the full scope of the disaster that is this presidency, and this president.
I look forward to reading the Drew piece -- she's a terrific and thoughtful reporter. But before that further fodder (thanks, Groucho), a thought:
Obama needs both parties to be seen as crazy. It is required for his self-conception and self-delusion as the only sane man in the room. He must be deeply terrified, really profoundly lacking in self-confidence, in a sense of self, to need this fantasy so strongly. But whatever the source, it is clear by now that it is in Barack Obama's self-perceived self-interest -- hence the pun in my title -- to posit a political landscape equally polarized between ideologies.
Problem is, the Dems aren't crazy; they're feckless, but they're not batshit. So he winds up ignoring them in practice, leaving them out of any negotiations. And the "negotiations" aren't any such thing. They're all about him, about how he will get to appear in their wake. The policies and principles involved are of no interest. The real-world outcomes are of no interest. He is entirely willing to abandon foundational things, to cut into supporting beams. He is walking around inside a fantasy world in which his success inheres in where he stands on the stage vis a vis the others there. And it must be alone.
As a result, the evisceration of the Democratic Party isn't just collateral damage, it's the point (albeit the still-unconscious point) of all this kabuki. This is what we PUMAs said during the 2008 primaries -- we grokked how dangerous this guy was to the Democratic Party, while the putative leadership of the Democratic Party ushered this fox into the henhouse.
What will come of this "disaster" (to quote the Krug)? The GOP won't be hurt, it'll be enormously helped -- but, in my view, even that isn't the goal. The goal is to establish the sui generis, above-it-all, new-paradigm cult of the Precious.
And that, of course, is mad as a hatter.
Update: The Connie Bruck piece is out. It lays out the full scope of the disaster that is this presidency, and this president.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Dump the Dems?
When I saw this, I was encouraged. When the governor of my state led this, I was moved. I am a lifelong partisan Democrat.
However, I’ve become convinced that the Democratic Party, as currently constituted, is more part of the problem than of the solution. So it needs to be reconstituted. And I’m thinking the only way to do that is to abandon it in 2012. The current leadership and structure of the party are addicted to their post-Vietnam fecklessness and caution, and it may be that the only way to save it is to go cold turkey. My beloved Democratic Party needs some tough love.
I hope somebody primaries Obama – and I would love for it to be Hillary. I can even imagine a scenario like 1968, where an unknown from the left, somebody with basically no resume, a la Gene McCarthy, opens the door… and then an electable star (Hillary, playing the role of Bobby Kennedy) walks through it. Is there any doubt that Bobby would have won the election if he had lived? Is there any doubt that Hillary would defeat anybody the Republicans nominated?
But I don’t believe that will happen. And if it doesn’t, I have come to think that it’s vital for the real Democratic Party to surgically remove the cancer represented by Obama, before it irreversibly becomes that cancer. And if some surrounding Congressional and Senatorial tissue has to be removed at the same time, so be it.
We can disagree about who and what Barack Obama actually is. I don’t personally believe he’s a diabolical genius of the right, but rather a personal and political cipher. An invisible man – to go all dramatic-irony on ya. He’s a fiction writer, the creator of the character “Barack Obama,” described with an adjectival and metaphoric vividness – “audacity”… “fierce urgency”… “hope”… etc. – that couldn’t be farther from the reality of whatever person is buried deep inside him. There’s a good chance we will never know that reality – that he himself will go to his grave never knowing it. In fact, it’s kind of haunting that this modern-day Chauncey Gardner seems entirely and permanently cut off from reality. There’s something deeply spooky, almost psychotic about his convivial smoothness, casual style, preternatural self-control… in the context of such a profound disconnect.
But that’s a topic for less urgent psychological and historical reflection. The matter at hand is that he is doing deep damage to the Party, the country and the world. The President of the United States at this inflection point in the global economy and in our broader history needs to be a force for progress – not just to keep the U.S. competitive, but to use America’s standing and capabilities to help crystallize a new global era of greater openness, prosperity, interconnection, fairness and sustainability. We need to make real progress, ergo a real progressive.
Of course, this was knowable – by many of us, it was known – in 2008. We knew we needed FDR, and we knew this guy was at best Jimmy Carter. Probably the most accurate analogy is the one Anglachel has made, and that Krugman has lately been substantiating: from a policy perspective, Obama is Herbert Hoover. The enraging spectacle of the Democratic Party embracing that and rejecting a serious thinker, doer and leader – with the accompanying misogyny, frat-boy shallowness, smugness, trickery and disenfranchisement – was simply awful… never to be forgotten.
But that’s water over the dam. The question is: What do we do now? The cards are on the table. It is no longer possible to pretend that Obama is a real progressive who is doing whatever can actually be done in a bad world. When our putatively Democratic president is pushing hard for policies to the right of the majority of Republican voters… when he is repeatedly dealt strong political hands that he invariably tosses away or misplays… when he runs the U.S. economy into the ditch again and again and again… we need to get him out from behind the wheel.
It would surely be godawful if we had President Michele Bachmann… or President Sarah Palin… or President Newt Gingrich. It would be deeply depressing to have President Mitt Romney. But – and here’s the key point for me – I don’t think it would be materially worse vis a vis the economy. It’s a danger re the Supreme Court, and re civil liberties, and those are non-trivial. But they can also be repaired. And with regard to the social safety net, I believe it would actually be harder for a Republican president to eviscerate it than for this “Democratic” Herbert Hoover. Nixon, China and all that.
Anyway, the point, finally, isn’t this person. The point is the Party, and whether it will matter to the world. If the Democrats are to return to political and policy relevance – much less innovation and progress – they need a swift kick to the gut, a slap upside the head, a bucket of cold water. The election of America’s first African-American president was a wonderful, historic event – but now we’ve done it. We passed that symbolic milestone. Now, we have work to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)